CreateDebate


Debate Info

16
34
Yes No
Debate Score:50
Arguments:45
Total Votes:54
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (15)
 
 No (22)

Debate Creator

KingZong(32) pic



Abolish the police, yes or no?

Yes

Side Score: 16
VS.

No

Side Score: 34
1 point

Abolish the police, yes or no?

Hello K:

In their present form, yes.. The fix is simple.. Take them apart and put them back together again MINUS Qualified Immunity, and MINUS the police unions..

There you have it.

excon

Side: Yes
Amarel(5562) Clarified
2 points

If you want to eliminate qualified immunity, why does that require we "take them apart" and what does it mean to "take them apart"?

While we are replacing things, what do you recommend we replace qualified immunity with? Do you know why it was established in the first place?

Side: Yes
excon(15401) Disputed
2 points

What do you recommend we replace [qualified immunity] with?

Hello A,

You’ve seen the pictures of Chauvan staring into the camera, sunglasses on his head, knee on George Floyd’s neck, and not a care in the world.

Does it look like he thinks he’ll lose his house if he kills George Floyd? Maybe if he thought he would lose his house if he killed George Floyd, he wouldn’t have killed George Floyd.

excon

Side: No
0 points

"

NEWS

Black-owned businesses struggling at George Floyd Square, plead for help

By Elizabeth Rosner and Jorge Fitz-Gibbon

April 22, 2021 | 7:19pm

Businesses around George Floyd Square.

Businesses around George Floyd Square.

Stephen Yang

MINNEAPOLIS — Black-owned businesses at the intersection where George Floyd was killed by police last year — now known as George Floyd Square — say they are in dire straits.

Black merchants near the once-thriving corner of 38th Street and Chicago Avenue said police have abandoned the blocked-off intersection, creating a dangerous autonomous zone that has seen crime spike and business evaporate.

“The city left me in danger,” the owner of Smoke In The Pit restaurant told The Post Thursday.

“They locked us up on here and left us behind,” said the merchant, who asked to be identified only as Alexander W. for fear of reprisals.

“They left me with no food, no water, nothing to eat,” he said. “The police, fire trucks, can’t come in here.”"

Supporting Evidence: No cops in George Floyd square (nypost.com)
Side: Yes
Hootie(429) Disputed
1 point

The NY Post is not a credible news source. It is a far right propaganda factory run by none other than Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox News.

The fact that you continuously read and link extreme far right propaganda discredits everything that you ever say:-

Since Murdoch took over the paper, The Post has been known for its over-the-top sensational headlines.

Editorially, The Post has endorsed the Republican Presidential Candidate in every race since 1980.

According to an LA Times article, the New York Post is reported to be U.S. President Donald Trump’s preferred newspaper.

The Post, According to a survey conducted by Pace University in 2004, was rated the least-credible major news outlet in New York.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-post/

You are a truly comical person Amarel. You are corrupt, dishonest and disingenuous down to your very last fibre of being. You are more like a cartoon villain than a real human being.

Side: No
Amarel(5562) Disputed
1 point

You haven't addressed the facts presented in the article.

Side: Yes

This is going to be a definite no. Seeing as we've already seen what happens with these cities that have moved to either defund, or even skirted the idea of abolishing their own police forces.

I think the amount of violence, death, and general mayhem are in no way worth any of this.

Side: No
Mongele(643) Clarified
1 point

Firstly I feel it is important to state that we must try not to jump on the band wagon of the current trendy mania of cop bashing.

Cops the world over either have by nature, or develop an arrogant attitude towards the general public.

''Cop-speak'' is pretty universally standard in most western countries with phrases such as, 'we ask the questions around here' being used in many in different languages.

Police recruits are trained how to command a situation by becoming assertive and issuing instructions few of which, if any have to be complied with.

I suppose the reasoning here is for the cops to bring some sort of order to confused and potentially volatile situations.

Due to the constitution Americans can, and regularly do successfully challenge a police officer's authority.

If applicable American citizens can exercise a greater degree of citizen's rights than in most other free nations by quoting the relevant amendment.

Even by western standards America is an open and transparent nation with the actions of the police being filmed and published unchallenged and unedited on most of the social media outlets.

To keep things in perspective we must remain mindful of the repressed citizens of such left wing totalitarian states as Russia, China, North Korea and Venezuela.

See how far you'd get with your cameras and microphones in any left or right wing dictatorship.

Side: Yes

That is understandable, given how some of our more closely aligned allies. Will completely turn on their populace, if they so much as step one foot out of line. Most are quick to forget that these countries sometimes lack something as simple as a rights to free speech, and it will usually cost people dearly.

-

As for the police in our instance. I feel that they're solely being stepped on in much the same way. Chauvin himself was doing only what he was trained to do, and the state threw him into the grinder. Sadly, this is mainly because the state is still going to be doing as it's always done, pretending that it's at no fault whatsoever. But even now we have other police being affected in much the same way.

Seeing as there was an officers who donated money to the defense fund for Rittenhouse, and was promptly fired when his donation was uncovered after the charity was targeted by a cyber attack.

None of this is right, and I feel that it's only a matter of time before police start to either go on strike, en masse, or they up and quit their positions altogether.

Side: No
1 point

No. If we did that, especially with the number of guns in this country, it would be a disaster.

That said, there needs to be as much responsibility with law enforcement as with any other job. You screw up, you pay the price! It's a risky job! You sign up for the job, you sign up for the risks! There needs to be a national set of rules along with the local set. An IAD investigation should be coordinated with a fed agency, likely part of the Justice Dept.

As far as the union is concerned, I'm a union man from way back. They NEED a union, but, in these types of incidents, it should be out of their hands. There are enough situations where they are needed, shootings shouldn't be one of them.

Side: No
1 point

No, but a comprehensive restructuring of policing procedures should be instigated forthwith.

A police force can only be effective if it has the support and confidence of the majority of the community it is serving.

As the required level of confidence doesn't seem to exist at the moment steps must be taken as a matter of urgency to build trust and respect for the predominant number of police officers who have dedicated their lives to the even-handed enforcement of the law.

What needs to be addressed and improved?

Well, I'm no expert, but I would submit the following proposals for consideration.

Officer training in attitudes needs to be instigated with particular attention to a departure from any stereotype prejudices and/or racial or religious bias.

In depth psychological profiling must be performed bi-annually and the results of the professional analysis acted upon.

Too many officers appear to produce their firearms at the first hint of trouble instead as a last resort.

An increase in neighborhood police officers whose prime function would be to help and advise the community's citizens on everyday matters, such as domestic disputes and minor offences with less emphasis on major crimes.

Side: No
Amarel(5562) Clarified
1 point

Any cop would happily except more training. The problem with American police today is not the police. Not statistically speaking and rarely anecdotally speaking. The problem is police have poor PR resulting from a lack of sufficient information and marketing from the police. This is coupled with a highly active, well-founded effort to undermine any and all police activity with the help of half the political spectrum.

You suggestion for regular, thorough psych analysis is not common to my knowledge. Everything else you suggested is typical police practice. Bias training is regular and widespread. Patrol is the name for those neighborhood police. And shootings? They are very rarely unjustified. But yes, cops are a little quick on the draw, but there's good reason. They are constant targets. The remedy for that is to teach your kids to obey police commands.

Supporting Evidence: Cop who doesn't want to be to quick to draw. (youtu.be)
Side: Yes
Jody(1787) Clarified
2 points

Any cop would happily except more training.

“Accept” not “expect”

Really? 40% of American police are fatties who have this self entitled bully boy swagger about them , last time I was in New York every cop I saw was overweight and normally seen chomping doughnuts or burgers /hot dogs whilst slouched against their cars , it seems when they leave the academy basic fitness /health goes out the window

They should be held to a basic fitness level and not one of these self entitled fatties would accept more training

The problem with American police today is not the police.

Seriously?

The Wall Street Journal issued a report that more than 40 percent of police officers, firefighters, and security officers are obese. Similarly, the FBI conducted a study that found eight-out-of-10 police officers are overweight. Missing from both of these reports are reasons why officers are overweight and obese.

Side: Yes
1 point

Why? What is the idea behind abolishing police? Areas that have pushed to refund or otherwise hinder police activity have seen significant spikes in violent crime and murder. The Ferguson Effect by itself demonstrates the need for police.

So what is it, that police are overly aggressive? Of the tens of millions of annual police contacts, less than 1% involve any use or threat of force. Of the thousand of arrests, only about 20% involved force, and most of that force (80%) was weaponless force such as grabbing or pulling.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh241/files/archives/ncjrs/176330-1.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiv2uHk8pHwAhWFB80KHR

So aggressive policing doesn't justify abolishing them. Maybe it's racism. Cops always pull over black people right? That's why black people get arrested so much more, right? Not according to available data.

Whites (26%) were more likely than blacks (21%), Hispanics (19%), or persons of other races (20%) to experience police contact.

There was no statistically significant difference in the percentage of whites (12%) and blacks (11%) who experienced police-initiated contact.

https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=7167

But what about racist police shootings? Of the 55 unarmed people killed by police in 2020, 18 were black. Everyone equates unarmed with non-lethal threat, but it's just not so. Wapo considers you unarmed if you are attempting to grab a cops gun, attempting to run them over, or had only just dropped your weapon at the moment of the shooting.

And what about disproportionate arrests and deaths as a percentage of population? Well, a hyper violent small subgroup of black males account for 50% of murder in the US. That's not just by arrest data, but by death statistics, as half the murder victims are black (murder tends to occur within races rather than between them). This means that disproportionate arrests and necessary uses of force within the black community is an example of police concern for black lives. When you actually know that black lives matter, you actually seek justice for black victims, which often means going after their perpetrators who are most often black as well.

The only reason to abolish the police is if you believe lies about police pushed by BLM and other leftist groups who have nothing more than destruction in mind.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/ investigations/police-shootings-database/

Side: No
excon(15401) Disputed
1 point

The only reason to abolish the police is if you believe lies about police pushed by BLM and other leftist groups who have nothing more than destruction in mind.

Hello A:

The only reason you'd BELIEVE anybody wants to literally ABOLISH the police is because you've OD'ed on FOX.

I know you HATE the left, but you can't - you absolutely CAN'T believe that actual people want to walk around with NO rules. And, you think that's what we want..

Look.. It's CRAZY to say it.. But, it's CRAZIER to believe it..

excon

Side: Yes
Amarel(5562) Disputed
2 points

I don't think that YOU excon want to abolish the police. I also don't think YOU consider free speech support synonymous with hate speech. I wouldn't see YOU rioting on a college campus to keep speakers out. But excon, your left is leaving you. You don't have to look to Fox to see that BLM and it's supporters are actually mean what they say when they call to abolish police.

"Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police"

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abolish-defund-police.html

"Black Lives Matter Activist: Abolishing The Police '100%' Means Just That"

https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2020/07/ 17/black-lives-matter-activist

"To abolish the police, Ritchie said, goes beyond slashing a budget and rejects policing and prisons as reformable institutions."

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/calls-reform-defund-dismantle-abolish-police-explained-n1227676

"The grassroots Minneapolis group MPD150, for example, is calling for a "police-free future.""

"The end goal of these reforms is not to create better, friendlier, or more community-oriented police or prisons," according to a statement on its website, "but to build toward a society without police and prisons."

https://www.insider.com/police-abolition-what-does-it-mean-how-does-it-work-2020-6

Side: No
1 point

Absolutely not. Even the black people in the US these progressive lunatics pretend to speak on behalf of have been polled and the majority wants more police. They fear their gangbanging neighbour and they fear riots at least more than they do the police.

Side: No
1 point

Didn't it fail when the Minneapolis police get defunded? Dangerous crimes were committed and now they need cops from elsewhere.

Side: No